Point of Law: Merely stating that huge financial losses are caused to the State would not suffice unless the charges are even prima-facie supported by any credible material placed before the court.

JUDGMENT :

ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.

1. Petitioner at the relevant point of time was the Senior Clerk in the Office of District Non Formal Education Officer, Varanasi. The Joint Director of Education vide the first impugned order dated 03.12.1997 has held that petitioner is substantively appointed Senior Clerk and was temporarily promoted to the post of Senior Assistant, in a local arrangement, and since disciplinary action is proposed to be initiated against him as such he is being sent back to his substantive post of Senior Clerk. The second order under challenge is an order of suspension passed against the petitioner on 22.01.1998, by the Joint Director of Education, which records that since disciplinary action on serious charges is contemplated, therefore, he is being placed under suspension.

2. It is after a gap of 13 long years that a charge-sheet has been issued to petitioner on 12.10.2011, leveling five charges against the petitioner, which is the third order under challenge. The charge-sheet is assailed on the ground that neither any material in support of the charges exists nor any disciplinary enquiry would be permissible in absence of such material. It is also urged that the delay of thirteen years in initiation of disciplinary action is not explained and in the facts and circumstances is wholly arbitrary. It is also contended that for a period of thirteen years during which petitioner was placed under suspension even subsistence allowance was not paid to him which renders the entire disciplinary action unsustainable. Sri. Kartikeya Saran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner places reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in P.V. Mahadevan vs. Md. T.N. Housing Board, (2005) 6 SCC 636, as also a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Special Appeal Defective No. 202 of 2021 (Neelu Dwivedi vs. Artificial Limbs Manufacturing Corporation of India and Others) to submit that unexplained delay in issuance of charge-sheet would vitiate the charge-sheet and it is liable to be quashed.

3. Sri. Shailendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel on the other hand contends that charges against the petitioner are extremely serious and for ascertaining the cause of delay in issuance of charge-sheet an enquiry by a three member enquiry committee has been constituted. It is also contended that delay was occasioned in issuing the charge-sheet on account of inter district communication between different officers since the charges related to a period when petitioner was posted at Bahraich whereas he was in fact serving at Varanasi when disciplinary action was initiated. Documents from different offices had to be collected which contributed to the delay. Reliance is placed upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. and Others vs. L.P. Rai, (2007) 7 SCC 81, as also the judgment of this Court in Dinesh Kumar Bhardwaj vs. State Bank of India through Regional Manager and Others (Writ Petition No. 39036 of 2012) to defend the impugned action. A prayer is also made to allow the respondents to proceed with the enquiry in view of the seriousness of charges levelled.

4. In reply Sri. Kartikeya Saran, learned counsel for the petitioner states that no material in support of the charges are shown to exists on record and, therefore, the allegation made against the petitioner in the charge-sheet are unsustainable for the mere reason that no material in support of such charges exists on record. It is pointed out that even the subsistence allowance has been paid to petitioner only in the year 2016 after eighteen years at the rate of salary admissible as per Forth Pay Commission report notwithstanding the fact that Fifth Pay Commission report got enforced on 01.01.1996. With reference to the affidavits filed by the Officers before this Court it is urged that respondents admit that original records are not in existence and, therefore, holding of disciplinary enquiry would otherwise be an abuse of the authority vested in t